At the second debate on Monday, the seating order did not match political orientation. Park Geun-hye, left, Lee Jung-Hee, center, and Moon Jae-in, right.

On the day after the second presidential debate, the watercooler consensus is that the candidates are getting better at this kind of thing.

However, little happened at Monday night’s debate to change the momentum of the race, which is still in favor of conservative Park Geun-hye.

Wednesday is the final day that media are allowed to publish polls before the vote on Dec. 19. Polls can still be taken, but any final swings in voter sentiment won’t be known publicly until Election Day.

Advertisement

At Monday’s debate, the main liberal candidate, Moon Jae-in, challenged Ms. Park more directly than he did at the first such outing last week. But he was still overshadowed by the arch criticism of the far left candidate Lee Jung-hee.

Ms. Lee began the debate not just by criticizing Ms. Park but also roping in the Lee Kun-hee family that controls the Samsung group of companies and the chairman of the Hyundai Motor Group, Chung Mong-koo.

She reached into 1990s history to say that Jay Y. Lee, the son of Samsung chairman Lee Kun-hee and likely next chairman of the country’s biggest business group, got special favors from Samsung when an Internet-related business he had started got into trouble. The generational transfer of power at a South Korea’s conglomerates is problematic on many levels. But, with both the Lee and Chung families having done very well with their businesses in recent years, Ms. Lee would have more credibility if she was current on the performance of the executives she was attacking.

Ms. Park put a pin in Ms. Lee’s attacks after Ms. Lee asked whether Ms. Park knew the country’s minimum wage. Ms. Park responded with both the current minimum wage and the level it would rise to next year, then said, “You come to a debate and ask me questions as if you’re playing a game.”

The debate, which was focused on economic policies, made plain the different approaches that Ms. Park and Mr. Moon have towards the big conglomerates.

Mr. Moon said he would like to dismantle the cross-holdings of shares that allow the founding families to remain in control of the conglomerates, with the aim that the firms “could be loved” by the South Korean people.

Ms. Park said that would be too expensive. “If that money is spent to resolve the circular cross-unit equity investment, no one will benefit from it and the workers for the conglomerates’ subcontractors will have to suffer,” she said.

Of course, many bankers, attorneys, accountants, investment firms and media would benefit from the dozens, if not hundreds, of transactions that would result from breaking the cross-holding structure. Plenty of work to do and jobs would abound from structuring deals that are worth billions of dollars worth. But then, when the candidates throw around their catchphrase “economic democratization,” they’re not talking about the moneyed elite who work in those places.